Making frivolous claims does not make it right...
Why is it frivolous?
How about you address the actual claim? Tell us how your of version of ID can be falsified.
They ask the question even when they know who, how, when, and by whom the crime was committed. Forensic is not the same as science even though it is called forensic science. In science you have observations and then you have theories to explain the observations along with predictions based on the theory that can then be verified by experimentation and measurement in controlled environments. The trouble with theories is that most of the time they can explain how but can't always explain why. For example, the big bang theory explain how the universe came into being but not why. In Quantum Mechanics they can explain that particles are composed of wave packets but can't explain why neutrons and other particles are always the same size. You want more from the theory but have to live with what you've got until something better comes along.
I accept that forensic science is not science in the usual sense. Why is that a problem? What exactly are you (the ID movement) wanting to achieve here?
Is your objective to get ID acknowledged as science?
Or is it to actually discover what happened?
Real science is about the latter. Forensic science is too. But ID is
politics. ID is sneaking creationism into schools, so what ID really wants is to be acknowledged as science. All the IDists already
know with utter certainty what happened - it says it in the Bible.
That is why it is even less like science than forensic science.
Most people are surprised to find out that worshiping God is not one of the commandments.
Mat 22:36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
The commandment is that you shall not have other gods before Me. And you shall not bow down before them... And ends the commandment with, "showing steadfast love to those who love me..". The scriptures indicate that God is not seeking worshipers but rather a father/son/daughter relationship. But that is not science because science is not based on scripture.
The scripture indicates the Jews were polytheistic when much of the OT was written.
Yes, that is what I have been stating all along. What is the question mark for?
The question mark is because I wanted confirmation.
Cytochrome-C is a protein with 2 bits per base pair and the chair is questionable.
A random sequence of 104 amino acids would require the same number of base pairs, so would also contain 648 bits of information, right? Your definition of information has no suggesting that function or purpose are part of it.
Is it a flat rock up against a cave wall or is it a structured 4 footed object with a cushioned seat and back and arm rests? The latter would have specified functionality and intelligently designed to fit a human form.
Great examples of chairs. Please tell me the information content of each. Or how you would measure it.
That is the topic of the thread - measuring design. Go ahead and measure it.
It's a general statement, that materialistic processes are incapable of generating large amount of functional information. What's wrong with that? And it's both testable and falsifiable.
But it is not a hypothesis about life appeared.
ID makes the claim that life was intelligently designed. But when it requires falsification it pulls a bait-and-switch and becomes merely anti-evolution.
You would be on your way to falsifying ID. Something that you claim is not possible.
So explain to me how proving that materialistic processes
are capable of generating large amount of functional information would refute the claim that life was intelligently designed.
I do not think it possibly can, because it is perfectly plausible for both to be true.
A court room is not a science forum and findings under legal scrutiny is not considered scientific evidence.
Sure. And ID has failed in every science forum too.
